Share
Readers are welcome to copy and share pages if a reference to powerandreality.com is visible.

Events, Interviews & Research
I used to be involved in politics as a candidate and organizer, so I have experience in public speaking, interviews and media communications. If there are topics of concern you want me to address, you are welcome to contact me.

Website references accessed on or before December 9, 2016 unless noted otherwise.

Brave New World Revisited: Contradiction: Aldous Huxley warns against religion and entertainment as opium but spends his life promoting religious mysticism and drug use

Aldous Huxley warns against religion in his non-fiction work Brave New World Revisited [9.1], explaining how religion, as well as entertainment and fiction, are used to control society:

Huxley compares entertainment to religion. Both, he says, are distractions if lived in too constantly, and both can become the “opium of the people (page 35).”

The purpose of constant amusement is to prevent “people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation (page 35).”

He states that those who spend their time in the “irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist” those who manipulate society (page 36).

Note that “metaphysical fantasy” can refer to both religion (case by case) and fiction.

I don’t dismiss all metaphysical beliefs and experiences, but I hope they are based on some kind of evidence, rationality, or even just a truthful recounting of someone’s experience without expectation that others believe it is objectively true. I think we would be better off if we didn’t build our lives on stories from preachers, gurus and texts, whether ancient or modern—unless we read them critically, filtering out valuable principles and truth from error.

Modern dictators, says Huxley, use propaganda that relies on “repetition” of slogans, “suppression” of facts, and “rationalization” of aroused “passions,” which are then put to use to serve the State (page 36).

He explains how rational information is drowned out by irrelevant nonsense (page 36) [9.1].

My analysis of Brave New World Revisited [9.2] further illustrates how Huxley promotes policies—such as “educating for freedom” [9.3]–policies which would lead to global dictatorship even though he sells them as ways to prevent that. In Brave New World Revisited, Huxley’s contradictions and suspicious arguments–on behalf of utopian, global projects–reveal his deceit.

Huxley, Religion and Drugs

The following quotes from the Wikipedia article on Aldous Huxley indicate how Huxley wasn’t opposed to certain kinds of religion and mysticism and took a very active interest:

[Huxley] later became interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism, in particular universalism. . . .

[Gerald] Heard introduced Huxley to Vedanta (Upanishad-centered philosophy), meditation, and vegetarianism through the principle of ahimsa. In 1938, Huxley befriended Jiddu Krishnamurti, whose teachings he greatly admired. He also became a Vedantist in the circle of Hindu Swami Prabhavananda, and introduced Christopher Isherwood to this circle. Not long after, Huxley wrote his book on widely held spiritual values and ideas, The Perennial Philosophy, which discussed the teachings of renowned mystics of the world. Huxley’s book affirmed a sensibility that insists there are realities beyond the generally accepted “five senses” and that there is genuine meaning for humans beyond both sensual satisfactions and sentimentalities. . . .

. . . [Huxley] gave lectures on “Human Potentialities” both at the University of California’s San Francisco Medical Center and at the Esalen Institute. These lectures were fundamental to the beginning of the Human Potential Movement. . . .

Huxley was a close friend of Jiddu Krishnamurti and Rosalind Rajagopal and was involved in the creation of the Happy Valley School (now Besant Hill School of Happy Valley) in Ojai, California. . . . [9.4]

The school was envisioned by Annie Besant, Guido Ferrando, Aldous Huxley, J. Krishnamurti, and Rosalind Rajagopal. The school is on . . . land that was bought in 1927 by Besant. It first opened its doors in Fall 1946 as the Happy Valley School . . . . The school was later renamed in July 2006 in Besant’s honor [9.6].

Huxley concludes that mescaline is not enlightenment or the Beatific vision, but a “gratuitous grace” (a term taken from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica). It is not necessary but helpful, especially so for the intellectual, who can become the victim of words and symbols. Although systematic reasoning is important, direct perception has intrinsic value too. Finally, Huxley maintains that the person who has this experience will be transformed for the better [9.9].

And yet, it’s clear that a mind-altering drug (“soma”) is essential to the scientific dictatorship portrayed in his novel, Brave New World, and it is also a part of the religious ceremonies required by that dictatorship [9.10].

In the novel’s religious ritual, it is all about having a supposedly mystical experience, but I doubt there is a higher level of spirituality in the context of drug use, sex and audio technology [9.10].

Huxley connects his mescaline drug experience to spirituality using calculated language, in my opinion, because he is knowledgeable enough to doubt that a chemically induced effect in the brain can be connected with spirituality.

Do we even say that about most of our dreams, or how we feel after having a great meal? No we don’t. New religious movements train people to think that spirituality is about mental experiences and sensations. Would we say that about electronically induced hypnotic experiences, or television watching, or about the experiences we have when drinking alcohol or taking a cold sedative to help us sleep? No. Why should anyone think that some hypnotic effect caused by a drug (always toxic to some degree)–medicinal or harmful, artificial or natural–is real spirituality? Doesn’t real spirituality have more to do with considering the value of our lives, how we’re supposed to live, and how we treat others?

Religion’s Effectiveness

It’s popular to make a distinction between “religion” and “spirituality,” but if there are third parties such as gurus, authors and organizations involved, what’s the difference? I prefer the word “religion,” and I try to use it in a neutral way that is not loaded with prejudice for or against. You can make a distinction if you like, but I think “spirituality” is just another word for “religion.” I wouldn’t be surprised if this lame distinction is a marketing effort to repackage and sell “new” religions while demonizing old religions.

In my life, I have seen a religious organization (a Bible-based “cult”) and its message operate very effectively via mass media without my having to join or attend any kind of service. “Effectively” means that changes in my attitudes and behavior took place, whether positive or negative, and I tend to think the changes in my case were often negative.

If a religion, hypothetically, has a positive influence and is not involved in spreading mind-crippling and life-crippling lies, but stands the test of truth, or at least has good intentions along with good results, then I am not interested in criticizing those involved just because they have an income, a strong organization or even beliefs I am not convinced of. When we need to evaluate, we should judge based on behavior, intention, truth, and results. We need to judge fairly in moral terms, case by case, focusing on evidence of corruption and hypocrisy. We are all limited by human nature and subject to corruption, but I want to try to make a distinction between the majority—who are affected by infiltrated religion—and those weaponized pockets of evil we should be protecting ourselves from–the sources of harmful control and infiltration via organizations and media:

This biblical passage seems to be very useful and rational. Why not use it and apply it to people and organizations that are asking for your money and claiming to have truth?

Good fruit, bad fruit, zero fruit.

Good results, bad results, zero results.

Judge. Evaluate. Think.

What would happen to your view of the world if you applied the above formula to your religion, to the government, to a cancer charity, to the money system, to the medical system, to your doctor, to the prescription drug you’ve been given, or to anything else?

Reality would become a whole lot clearer.

I don’t agree with everything in the Bible or even everything Jesus says. I’m not quoting the Bible as an absolute “believer,” but I am entitled to quote from it nevertheless as someone who studied it and who grew up with it as part of my heritage. Also, I am quoting the parts I feel are revealing or truthful, as with other books.

However, many religious leaders and those who pave their way are not concerned about truth. They are concerned about padding their pockets while studying and testing which human domestication methods give the best results—for themselves and their masters.

From the oligarchy’s point of view, the slave, whether working class or middle class, needs to be just strong or smart enough to do the necessary grunt work in order to bring in tithes for the Church and taxes for the government.

If you’re left with half a brain or a reduced leadership capacity or not having any wife or husband or children or stable family relationships, this might be the intended result of various policies, including religious propaganda.

The religious and mystical propaganda of a cult might directly target your free time, or your diet, or your wallet, or your emotions, or your identity, or your confidence, or your relationships with family and friends, or how you see your fellow man.

The government and corporations also might be directly targeting all of that–along with the other areas of your life–using the fluoridation, the vaccines, the psychotropic drugs (with their multiple side effects), the taxation system, the endless totalitarian laws that undermine the past order of traditionally accepted rights and freedoms, and the education system that comes with the philosophic confusion about reality and morality, the slogan-based emotionally-laden, hypnotic media propaganda, including the pornography and other forms of entertainment.

If religion hits you from one direction about sex, the corporate oligarchy bashes your head in from the other direction.

Either way, then you are ready to serve your very limited function and role in society. Those with some religious function assigned to them by an organized cult may not be so alone, but many in society, including those who are brainwashed by the new “spirituality,” generally are increasingly left to forage as isolated individuals, with no family of their own in some cases, and with very little influence, or strength, or thoughts beyond those assigned to them by their influences under this system.

Additional Information

[9.1] Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley, Electronic editions published 2000, 2010 by RosettaBooks LLC, New York. ISBN Mobipocket edition: 9780795300165.
Quoted by author here: Commentary on Brave New World Revisited – Part 4 at http://canadianliberty.com/?p=17349.

Website references accessed on or before December 21, 2016 unless noted otherwise.

Julian Huxley, the brother of Aldous, was an evolutionary biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, the first President of the British Humanist Association, the first Director of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund [10.1].

Why is Teilhard de Chardin’s version of evolution considered mystical, but the Huxley family’s biological version of evolution is not? Why isn’t Julian Huxley considered a mystic for also promoting transhumanism [10.1]?

Considering the men who originated modern science, it seems to me that evolution is more of an occult doctrine than a rational “scientific” theory, and possibly this also describes the theories of modern “science” in general [10.3].

The doctrine of “atheism,” if it’s for real, doesn’t seem to have a very rational basis either, considering the atheistic rejection of the Cosmological Argument [10.3].

These scientists (or public relations professionals) seem to be more concerned with science–not as a source of truth–but as a source of technology [10.3], as a source of tools for social control, and as a source of doctrines such as evolution, which seems to be more of a religious doctrine imposed on us by education and media so that we are more likely to accept its account of our origins (as just animals), and to accept being dominated by others (“survival of the fittest”), and to accept all policy changes imposed on us as natural “progress” and social “evolution.”

The difficulty of finding an objective criterion of truth in social science cuts deeper. But it is based upon an intellectualist philosophy which hankers after abstract truth. It largely disappears if we take the more robust view that science is control as well as knowledge, and that these two aspects cannot be separated. . . .Thus in social science, experiment is not the remote preliminary to action that it is in natural science, but is itself partly action—both pure and applied science simultaneously. . . .

. . . Eugenics . . . is a branch of social science. It is not merely human genetics. . . . [10.4]

Page 40:

. . . The purpose of eugenics is on the one hand to study the presence of different inherited types and traits in a population, and the fact that these can be increased or diminished in the course of generations as the result of selection, unconscious or deliberate, natural or artificial, and on the other, eventually to use the results of this study for control. . . . [10.4]

There are different ways in which public school systems can be used for social science experiments and actual social control. For example, in Ontario, Canada, in the 1970s, students who graduated from Grade 8 would be “streamed” into totally different high school classes (“basic,” “general” and “advanced”) based on academic performance. In addition to affecting career choices and attitudes about their “level” in society, I’m sure would this affect the dating and marriage decisions of students.

Page 68, 69:

. . . Science is simultaneously both theory and practice, both knowledge and control. . . . I would say that we cannot succeed in achieving anything in the nature of adequate positive eugenics unless we attempt the control of the social environment simultaneously with the control of the human germ-plasm . . . [10.4]

Page 71:

. . . The experiment is both an attempt to gain knowledge and an effort to realize a wish, a desired control. . . .

. . . We must attempt to control the change of social environment and at the same time to control the change of human germ-plasm, . . . IT IS THE RESULTS WHICH INTEREST US . . . [10.4]

Huxley emphasizes this point about getting practical results.

Charles Galton Darwin advocated the practical use of new religious creeds as long-term policy tools [10.2]. In the same way, Julian Huxley sees the need to replace one set of religious “attitudes” with another set:

Page 78:

Huxley brings up the religious opposition to birth control and the separation of sex from reproduction. He also mentions the “recent technique of artificial insemination,” which has “opened up new horizons.”

. . . It is now open to man and woman to consummate the sexual function with those they love, but to fulfil the reproductive function with those whom on perhaps quite other grounds they admire.

This consequence is the opportunity of eugenics. But the opportunity cannot yet be grasped. It is first necessary to overcome the bitter opposition to it on dogmatic theological and moral grounds, and the widespread popular shrinking from it, based on vague but powerful feelings, on the ground that it is unnatural.

We need a new attitude to these problems [“problems” in his mind], an attitude which for want of another term we may still call religious. We need to replace the present attitude fostered by established religions by a new but equally potent attitude.

So we come up against the concept of “evolutionary progress” again, which is how these people refer to the New World Order they are designing. Calling their plans “progress” helps to condition us to accept their plans but doesn’t change the grim reality and consequences of those plans.

Religion is a key factor in the desired control of the human social environment Huxley is talking about. Religion is a factor in education as well as reproductive morality, including what kind of interference is allowed in human genetics in the name of science. What people believe about the value of human life and the ability to act autonomously, or according to a conscience that is independent of the oligarchy’s control levers, either obstructs or enhances whatever “progress” or “results” Huxley wants to see. Traditional religious values that elevate the individual human life and conscience limit the “possibilities” and “opportunities” enjoyed by power-hungry, propaganda-wielding sadists who want to interfere with, alter, control, destroy and enslave.

Huxley thinks he and others like him–such as those who created Agenda 21 decades later–have the right to grab control over everything and everybody.

In the above quotations, Julian Huxley minimizes the importance of “abstract truth,” indicating that he sees control as the main purpose of science (and religion).

When people like Julian Huxley think of science, they (and many in the public also) think of technology, science as a tool for control over material resources, except that they’re always talking about resources that rightfully belong to others! But they also see social science as a tool for control over human beings, even though many of us have been raised to believe that we have rights as individuals and are supposed to make our own choices in life.

It is ironic that “established religion” and its attitude of protecting the natural from the unnatural is demonized by Julian Huxley and targeted as opposition to his agenda for social control. It is Julian Huxley’s agenda that should be demonized, the agenda of dehumanization, the agenda of downgrading the status of non-elite human beings, the agenda of global scientific dictatorship as clearly described in his brother’s novel.

Science and religion—especially the new religions—the new, modified versions of Christianity, the new combinations of mysticism [10.6]– as promoted by the Huxley family and others closely connected with them, have their origins in an occult desire for power [10.3]. They look for effects, phenomena and results, for tools and technology, for formulae. They want results. They believe in domination, “order,” “improving,” “progress,” making things supposedly better (the idea of eugenics).

Nowadays, we hear that an organism’s genetics can be modified, but can nature really be improved upon? In Aldous Huxley’s novel, the lower classes are just damaged, not improved. With Julian Huxley’s transhumanism, promoted in terms of evolutionary progress, we could end up with a world full of modified humans, who are genetically and technologically “enhanced” to slave away in particular environments, but who are also mentally and physically limited to keep them subdued and in their place.

In the 1950s Huxley played a role in bringing to the English-speaking public the work of the French Jesuit-palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who he believed had been unfairly treated by the Catholic and Jesuit hierarchy. Both men believed in evolution, but differed in its interpretation as de Chardin was a Christian, whilst Huxley was an unbeliever. Huxley wrote the foreword to The Phenomenon of Man (1959) and was bitterly attacked by his rationalist friends for doing so.

[10.3] Regarding the idea of the occult origins of modern Royal Society-based science, I credit the theme running through David Livginstone’s books. For example, see Transhumanism at http://www.conspiracyschool.com/transhumanism:

is an occult philosophy based on an interpretation of the story of the Book of Genesis, where the devil promised that if Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” they would “become as gods”

Page 47:

. . . the personalities who shaped the modern scientific epoch were, for the most part, steeped in the occult.

Page 48:

As the American religious scholar Catherine Albanese suggested in her discussion of American Masonry, “if any genuinely new popular religion arose in New World America, it was a nature religion of radical empiricism, with the aim of that religion to conflate spirit and matter and, in the process, turn human beings into gods.”

Deliberately excluded from the Royal Society’s areas of study were typical university disciplines of metaphysics, divinity, morals, grammar, logic and rhetoric. Instead, studies were strictly secular, focusing on manufacture, machines and inventions and also the recovery of ancient skills and secrets . . .

. . . the Age of Scholasticism helped initiate a debate that has become one of the great founding fallacies of Western civilization, that of the supposed incompatibility of faith and reason, which has shaped its particularly distorted perception of religion. Thomas Aquinas imitated Avicenna’s use of what is known as the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, first mentioned by Aristotle. The Cosmological Argument is logical though it has rarely been acknowledged as such by those who have been put off by its simplicity. According to the argument, if everything has a cause then the first cause must be uncaused. If the first cause is uncaused then it must be eternal. And that is God.
However, the faith/reason misconception was given apparent validity by William of Ockham who rejected the Cosmological Argument. . . . (page 93)

[10.7] New world of possibilities, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLoW-3gaTPo. Video shows Reagan’s Vice-President George Bush visiting Monsanto and promoting the company’s genetic modification of soy. The soy plant, the corporate representative says, is modified in order to make it more resistant to their herbicide (Round Up Ready). Then there is another segment which shows Bush’s VP Dan Quayle being explicit about the government policy on GMOs. In both cases, the policy justification (cover story I say) to allow these things is “dereg” or deregulation–resisting the “spread of unnecessary regulation” to make sure the U.S. remains a leader in biotech.
YouTube.com, Title: “George HW Bush – Genetically Modified Food Deregulation (1992).mp4”, uploaded December 5, 2010. Channel: Sun Zoo.

Website references accessed on or before February 16, 2017 unless noted otherwise.

In his 1933 non-fiction manifesto, The Open Conspiracy, H. G. Wells (1866–1946) writes about how to achieve control over the world through undermining opposing institutions and attitudes [11.1].

Wells, a student [11.3] of T. H. Huxley (grandfather of Aldous and Julian), was a very influential propagandist.

According to the IMDb biography of H. G. Wells,

. . . In any appraisal [of] the 20th century, H.G. Wells must be considered among its very most important and influential thinkers and authors. . . . [11.2]

Like Annie Besant, Wells was a significant figure in the Fabian Society along with George Bernard Shaw, Sydney and Beatrice Webb, and others [11.2][11.3].

The History of the Fabian Society by Edward R. Pease relates that Wells once spoke about “scientific administrative areas” in municipal affairs, which seems relevant to the idea of scientific dictatorship [11.3].

During World War I, Lord Beaverbrook, the British Minister of Information, had successful authors such as H. G. Wells write war propaganda in the form of newspaper articles and pamphlets [11.2] [11.4].

In Imperialism and The Open Conspiracy, Wells explains that he was a member of the Club of Coefficients, which included some very powerful figures:

In a little dining and debating club of thirteen members, invented by Mrs. Sidney Webb, people like Mr. Bertrand Russell, the late Lord Haldane, the new Lord Passfield and myself, met and rubbed minds with people like Mr. Amery, Mr. Leo Maxse, Mr. Mackinder, Lord Milner, and Lord Grey. Our alleged object was to get a common conception of the Empire (p. 10) [11.5].

The same meetings are mentioned in The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, a professor at the United States School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University:

Milner was the creator of the Round Table Group. In the sketch of Milner in the Dictionary of National Biography, written by Basil Williams, we read: ‘He was always ready to discuss national questions on a non-party basis, . . . , and in a more heterogeneous society, the ‘Coefficients,’ where he discussed social and imperial problems with such curiously assorted members as L. S. Amery, H. G. Wells, (Lord) Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, (Sir) Michael Sadler, Bernard Shaw, J. L. Garvin, William Pembler Reeves, and W. A. S. Hewins (Ch. 7, p. 137) [11.6].

Control, Power and the New Faith

In The Open Conspiracy, Wells expresses his opinion that there is a:

necessity for world biological controls, for example, of population and disease (p. 72) [11.1].

His goal is “world control”:

as the merger of the Atlantic states proceeds, the possibility and necessity of bringing areas of misgovernment and disorder under world control increases.. (p. 90) [11.1].

He writes that “Open Conspiracy children will become a social elite . . . (p. 86) [11.1]”

Wells writes about the new faith:

Now the old faiths are damaged and discredited, and the new and greater one, which is the Open Conspiracy, takes shape only gradually . . .(p. 86) [11.1].

Changes to Beliefs and Behavior

Well states that the Open Conspiracy will repudiate:

many existing restrictions upon conduct and many social prejudices (p. 88) [11.1]

Wells advocates in his works (implicitly or otherwise) what can be called “sexual freedom”–sexualization or promiscuity–even though it is a tool of the scientific dictatorship described in Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World [11.7]. Huxley also acknowledges the tyrannical purpose of sexual freedom in his later non-fiction work, Brave New World Revisited [11.8].

In our lifetime, we have seen the results of of social engineering that weakened attitudes and rules which I believed helped to protect family stability and also children against sexual abuse.

Traditional religion, flawed as it is, got in the way of this agenda. This is because it presents an authority that is independent of the new religion of the Open Conspiracy, which includes the deification of human government and especially the potential “scientific” World State being molded from Huxleyan “humanism,” scientism and mysticism.

Since the Rockefeller-funded fraudulent PEDO-science of Alfred Kinsey was used to overturn attitudes and laws [11.9], social restrictions on pornography have disappeared–and its presence has escalated (along with brutality and torture as entertainment).

For a long time, children have been exposed to scenes of adult sexuality of varying degrees via the television, magazines, movies and Internet. It would be better if people were aware of the blatant contradiction that it is still not acceptable or legal for children to be exposed to nudity and sexual displays [11.10]–but exposure via the god-level Media is ignored and played down. Most of us have grown up with this situation, so it escapes our attention. On top of what the corporate media has done, even more of a contradiction exists with post-Kinsey government education programs pushing the Huxley sex education agenda further and further [11.11].

The Open Conspiracy Fights for the Right to Spread Its Ideas

Wells asserts that

Whenever possible, the Open Conspiracy will advance by illumination and persuasion. But it has to advance, . . . where it is not allowed to illuminate and persuade, it must fight. Its first fights will probably be for the right to spread its system of ideas . . . (p. 88) [11.1].

Freedom of speech is cherished in societies like Canada. However, in retrospect, in my opinion, I would speculate that for much of the twentieth century, this freedom is likely to have been defended most often by persons working on behalf of the corporate oligarchy—for its misuse—in order to promote, not the free exchange of ideas, but the one-way driving of social engineering–via the oligarch’s tools, which include pornography, Marxism and ideological propaganda of the Wellsian variety. This includes news and entertainment media, universities, the culture and arts. And we know that a substantial amount of funding for these areas comes from our taxes [11.12]. The use of such subsidies to alter social structures–and to expose children to sexual interference and exploitation–is an abusive betrayal of the public and whatever democratic principles we believe we have.

By the way, the oligarchs are not ideological in a conventional sense. Other public relations tricks and tools of societal change can be listed, and may not all seem as ideological or left-wing in nature. If you pay attention to formats such as morning radio news talk for example, the formula often is that some “problem” is presented and along comes a representative guest of an “association” of some kind that supplies the “solution.” And voilà, we have certain laws eventually introduced to spy on people in their cars or in their homes or in their bodies in the name of fighting “global warming,” terrorism, alcohol, drugs, smoking, obesity, waste, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, using Wells’ statement as evidence, the promotion of free speech has been one-sided and was carried out more and more to the exclusion of traditional ideas, or reality-based ideas about human life and human nature, even to the extent that so-called hate speech for a gradually increasing number of subject categories has been criminalized. Even so, the Canadian hate speech law has been challenged by a minority of Supreme Court justices [11.13]. It is in opposition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and older formulations of rights and freedoms present since the days before Canada was founded [11.14] [11.15].

Religion With Emphasis On Individual Submission To The Collective

H. G. Wells refers to the “The Call To Action Of The Servants Of The Open Conspiracy.” From Ch. 5 “Religion in the New World”:

The clear-minded Open Conspirator . . . is obliged to believe that only by giving his life to the great processes of social reconstruction . . . can he do well with his life (p. 22) [11.1].

Wells describes his idea of a new religion. He praises the aspect of religions that “demanded great subordinations of self ” because “therein lay their creative force.”

Wells describes his new religion further:

The conception of progress as a broadening and increasing purpose . . . turns religious life towards the future. We think no longer of submission to the irrevocable decrees of absolute dominion, but of participation in an adventure on behalf of a power that gains strength and establishes itself (p. 25) [11.1].

It seems unavoidable that if religion is to develop unifying and directive power . . . it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories, its gross preoccupations, its posthumous prolongation of personal ends. The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system (p. 26) [11.1].

From Ch. VI “Modern Religion is Objective”:

The idea of inner perfectibility dwindles with the diminishing importance attached to individuality. We cease to think of mortifying or exalting or perfecting ourselves and seek to lose ourselves in a greater life. We think less and less of “conquering” self and more and more to escaping from self. If we attempt to perfect ourselves in any respect it is only as a soldier sharpens and polishes an essential weapon (p. 27) [11.1].

I want to explain how this quote, I think, which seems positive in a misleading way, is a very important element in the dehumanization process—the process of removing the soul from what becomes just a conscienceless shell—a mere tool of the power elite, a shell who only looks like a human being.

Regardless of the truth of religious doctrines, Wells had an obnoxious attitude towards individual spiritual and moral struggles. He thinks a personal religion of a “secluded duet between the individual and his divinity” “may be regarded as a perversion of the religious impulse.” He claims that a “normal religious process takes the individual out of his egotism for the service of the community (p. 22) [11.1].”

The word “community” sounds nice, but it means whatever system of government he has in mind that manages the planet in detail, including our minds and bodies.

The subordination of the self–the subordination of the individual–is the aspect of religion that Wells exalts the most.

It’s not to say that he doesn’t have a point about our desire to be part of something bigger, about the desire to make things better for our fellow human beings—but I certainly disagree with what he thinks is better or “progress.”

There is something to be said that people may be obsessing too much about their individual lives in certain ways, especially in recent decades, because I think that people are spending too much time on “improving” themselves in superficial and materialistic ways. In fact, that is likely to be another stage of the same Open Conspiracy, with the Huxleyan social changes that have taken place—the strange combination of materialism and mysticism that has been dropped on us. There is a lot to be said about this topic—how people are judging themselves and others by their level of prosperity—and attributing prosperity and happiness to positive thinking, while discounting real evil that is going on and how it is hurting others, even as the evil encroaches on their own circles.

I certainly disagree with what Wells is implying, that we should stop focusing on the importance of individual character and personal moral behavior. In fact, to make a world that is actually better, we need to stop going along with the corrupt institutions that lord it over us, we need to switch off the bossy noise and tap in to our own individual powers of thought, and we need to learn more about the good aspects of what traditional religion used to emphasize, which was to pay attention to personal integrity, to not endlessly pat ourselves on the back, to remove corrupt influences from our lives, to sift out the lies from the truth, to not be blindly unthinking, obedient slaves to the humanist dictatorship his kind is erecting. We need to have BOTH a concern for our own individual souls (as people used to say) and ALSO a concern for others, a sense of building a more livable future for our fellow human beings—and I am sure that has nothing to do with the kind of “future” his clique have been busily trying to build for generations now. In fact, his “progress” is something we need to protect ourselves from, and I have no doubt we’ve had too much of it already.

And that’s not to say the old system is something we should go back to and pretend that it cared for our well-being, freedom and rights all that much either. It certainly didn’t seem to let us think very much for ourselves. If we had learned to think freely under the old religious systems, and talk freely about life, we would never have been sitting ducks for the Brave New World policies of the scientific dictatorship.

In other words, going along and blindly following anything—this extreme form of collectivism in which we focus on trivial things as if we are babies and let the “rulers” focus on the important things and tell us what to think–is just another way to spell “corruption.” And it’s all around us, and we are already suffering for it in incredible ways—or we will suffer in spite of our “positive thinking” propaganda training. We dismiss as “conspiracy theories” what should be obvious cause and effect.

What evils result from elevating criminality and putting it on a pedestal and believing all the lies and garbage it flings at us and sells to us? What evils result from failure to think, from failure to discern and judge, from failure to condemn?

He emphasizes the tiresome Fabian gangster formula about how we need to have a world government or else the bosses will continue to start wars (not worded that way of course):

. . . to make an end to war we must be cosmopolitan in our politics. It is impossible for any clear-headed person to suppose that the ever more destructive stupidities of war can be eliminated from human affairs until some common political control dominates the earth, and unless certain pressures due to the growth of populations, due to the enlarging scope of economic operations or due to conflicting standards and traditions of life, are disposed of (p. 28) [11.1].

To avoid the positive evils of war, and to attain the new levels of prosperity and power that now come into view, an effective world control, not merely of armed force, but of the production and main movements of staple commodities and the drift and expansion of population is required. It is absurd to dream of peace and world-wide progress without that much control . . .(p. 28) [11.1]

Doesn’t that sound like he wants centralized control over the distribution of all basic commodities? So much for “free trade.” How else can you control the people globally unless you force them all to compete with the cheapest labor and goods from the other side of the world and be dependent on those goods so that they can be effectively rationed when populations start getting out of hand? The Open Conspiracy, Utopian rulers need to be able to choke off basic supplies when there is “rebellion” and unplanned growth, right?

And of course, they need to “dispose of” pressures “due to conflicting standards and traditions of life,” right?

So continuing on with the theme of suppressing individual conscience and moral development, Wells’ attitude ties in with efforts to suppress freedom of conscience, which I have commented on when it comes to medical professionals—or whole societies–having conscientious convictions that prevent them from participating in practices they object to [11.16]. Most or all of these practices relate to Wellsian-style population reduction (biological control) in some form or other.

Depending on the individual, this might include practices such as abortion, contraception, sterilization, administering certain drugs or vaccines they believe to be unwarranted, performing certain surgeries they consider to be mutilation, practices that are often funded by tax-payers in countries such as Canada—in violation of the personal conscience of many tax-payers!

Freedom of conscience, and other key freedoms, is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [11.15] but some people still have the gall to challenge personal conscience—obviously—because they work for their masters’ agenda, which is tyranny. And tyranny necessitates corruption, because it can’t stand personal conscience opposing it. It has this sick desire to replace God and turn a human being into a machine that just does what it is told. Slavery has always been with us, just because the “fit” survive and “might makes right.” Some people just see the rest of us as taking up their space.

Forcing people to go against their conscience is an aspect of impoverishing, monopolistic, violent (see foreign policy especially), uncivilized tyranny. Using half-baked, irrational and emotional arguments to attack such rights and freedoms—introducing “anti-terrorism” legislation for example–is a feature of a society that has been dehumanized and victimized by psychological warfare. In place of the old freedoms, it offers new “freedoms” where you don’t get to be a normal human being living in reality anymore.

The same concepts repeat with each of these oligarchy-serving, society-manipulating individuals. Bringing in a type of religious concept that we have already discussed, related to Julian Huxley’s transhumanism, such as the noosphere of Teilhard de Chardin and Terence McKenna’s idea of the Internet as a global mind [11.17], H. G. Wells describes his Open Conspiracy as a type of intelligent and consuming form of life that grows of its own accord:

It [the Open Conspiracy] may also assimilate great masses of intelligent workers. As its activities spread it will work out a whole system of special methods of co-operation. As it grows, and by growing, it will learn the business of general direction and how to develop its critical function. A lucid, dispassionate, and immanent criticism [research Frankfurt School] is the primary necessity, the living spirit of a world civilization. The Open Conspiracy is essentially such a criticism, and the carrying out of such a criticism into working reality is the task of the Open Conspiracy. It will by its very nature be aiming not so much to set up a world direction as to become itself a world direction, and the educational and militant forms of this opening phase will evoke, step by step, as experience is gained and power and responsibility acquired, forms of administration and research and correlation (p. 32) [11.1].

Wells talks about the will to have the “map” complete and up to date. The analogy to a living intelligent system continues:

And through that will it will produce as the central organ the brain of the modern community, a great encyclopedic organization, kept constantly up to date and giving approximate estimates and directions for all the material activities of mankind (p. 38) [11.1].

It becomes like the man-made mind of the elite’s governmental, ruling structure, its man-made substitute for “God,” a type of Artificial Intelligence in some sense.

As mentioned, Terence McKenna identified the Internet in this way, as a global mind [11.17], and possibly it may eventually become very similar to what Wells wrote about, and what Teilhard de Chardin called the “noosphere” [11.17], and what Jacques Attali wrote about in A Brief History of the Future –a “collective intelligence” [11.18].

I would compare it to an attempt to create a substitute for God which parallels the biblical story of the Tower of Babel [11.19].

Furthermore, I can’t help thinking of Revelation 13:14-15, which I see as possibly a plan or at least a pattern of human nature rather than a literal prophecy, in which the miracle-working world dictatorship (Beast, or Roman Empire historically) has everyone worship its image, which is somehow given life and the power of speech, an impressive false substitute for God [11.20]. Probably others have noticed this comparison. Is this just referring symbolically to a Roman emperor, or is it an analogy to an occultic AI (Artificial Intelligence) project? Again, there is the world, including our nature, as God created it, and then there is the modified and “perfected” world of the occultist, technocratic, GMO, smart dust, Agenda 21, super-surveillance, technology-worshiping, pseudo-scientific, power-lusting, tower-to-heaven builders.

The Internet was created by the globe-straddling United States military [11.21][11.22], which divides the world up into regions [11.23]. Note that President George Bush Sr. announced the concept of the Wellsian New World Order (another of his books is The New World Order [11.2]) several times, referring to “a new world of possibilities [11.24].” Note also that the United States includes another organization in New York City called the United Nations, which has a similar name. Both, in my view, serve the same mission of creating a world government.

A member of the Fabian Society, [Wells] . . . wrote several socio-political works dealing with the role of science and the need for world peace . . .

Wells attended

. . . London’s Normal School of Science where he studied biology under Darwin’s “bull dog,” the great T.H. Huxley . . .

. . . After spending time with the British government’s War Office in the Propaganda Department and helping to define a clear set of war aims, he resigned and returned to writing propaganda his way. . . .

The World Set Free (1914)

. . . was a prophetic novel about a world war . . . which included a remarkably accurate forecast of atomic warfare and even coined the term “atomic bomb” . . .

See Chapter IX. Wells seems to have tried to take over the Fabian Society:

The substance of the controversy was whether the members desired to hand over their Society to be managed by Mr. Wells alone, or whether they preferred to retain their old leaders and only to accept Mr. Wells as one amongst the rest (p. 98).

Mr. Wells became a member in February, 1903, and in March gave his first lecture to the Society on a very technical subject, “The Question of Scientific Administrative Areas in Relation to Municipal Undertakings,” a paper subsequently published as an appendix to “Mankind in the Making” (p. 98).

[11.9] For the reality of Alfred Kinsey (as opposed to the propaganda, which creates division based on authority-induced, emotionally-based beliefs which prevent us from examining the facts), see Dr. Judith Reisman’s website: www.drjudithreisman.org [or http://www.drjudithreisman.com. These links don’t work as per April 16, 2017]. Her information includes the role of the Rockefeller Foundation, the origin of the sexual revolution, the role of pornography, the history of sex education and related institutions. For example, Dr. Reisman has recommended some documentaries and I’ve linked to my summaries of these:

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence . . .Exposure
(2) Every person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her genital organs to a person who is under the age of 16 years
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence . . .

174 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,
(a) is nude in a public place, or
(b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.Nude
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.Consent of Attorney General
(3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.
[Note: A cabinet minister seems to have the power to cancel out this particular section of the law – not much of a law if it can be turned on and off from on high. The power to judge each situation should be spread out among the citizenry in my opinion.]
. . .Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.
175 (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place [that sounds like the arts and media, and possibly some forms of sex education],
(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by . . .
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In the dissenting judgment, McLachlin J. was particularly concerned by what she saw as the breadth, vagueness and subjectivity inherent in section 319(2). . . .

[11.14] Rights and freedoms as ideals are part of our early history in societies like Canada, and not just in America. See the books by Janet Ajzenstat on the Canadian political system as a reference for this point. I comment on them here: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=18792.

[11.15] http://canadianliberty.com/?p=16882 – Forsaken Principles of Canadian Society.
Post includes information on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also to a pre-Charter formulation of our rights and freedoms, Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights.

[11.16] The series “Freedom of conscience vs. global population policies” includes documentation on various topics and concludes with Part 14: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=21378

There is a detailed Wikipedia Article on this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence which includes a reference to a book by H. G. Wells called World Brain. This article includes information on how “Collective Intelligence” relates to the Internet.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

[11.21] For information surrounding the history of the Internet and the bigger picture of the scientific dictatorship under development, see the film, The NET: The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet by Lutz Dammbeck (2003). It can be currently found on YouTube and I’ve linked to it here: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13273.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.

The United States currently has nine Combatant Commands, organized either on a geographical basis (known as “Area of Responsibility”, AOR) or on a global, functional basis:
U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)
U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM)
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)
U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM)
U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM)
U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)

Stay up to date

I give Power & Reality permission to collect and use my data submitted in this form.

Give consent that we may collect and use your data.

Mailing List

0% Complete

Privacy Policy: The above statement is added by the mailing list software to comply with EU law. Actually, personal data entered with mailing list subscriptions is only used for the mailing list and nothing else. Also, personal data entered with comments is not used for any other purpose.